[HN Gopher] AMD Laptops finally reach the 4k screen barrier
___________________________________________________________________
AMD Laptops finally reach the 4k screen barrier
Author : basilgohar
Score : 88 points
Date : 2021-10-18 16:27 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (amd-now.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (amd-now.com)
| glogla wrote:
| How is Linux support on those? And how is Linux support on
| 4k/HiDPI in general?
|
| I'm thinking of replacing aging Macbook Pro and those look pretty
| good.
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| HiDPI on Linux is certainly not as good as MacOS (from what
| I've heard) or Windows but it _can_ be decent. If you are on
| Wayland than display scaling both integer and fractional works
| pretty well. Scaling older X11 /Xwayland applications can be a
| bit of a pain so sometimes those windows look blurry.
|
| 4K itself without any scaling works perfectly fine so I
| typically try to get laptops and monitors with a DPI between
| 100 and 140 so that I don't have to worry about scaling. Higher
| resolutions on smaller screens i.e laptops also use more power
| anyway.
| leephillips wrote:
| On my 2013 Google Chromebook Pixel (running real Linux) I set
| Xft.dpi: 240 in my .Xresources file, matching the screen
| resolution. Seems to work well. I'm not sure what "scaling"
| is. Is that it? I wouldn't want to use a 140 dpi screen,
| unless it were a big one mounted 6 feet or so away.
| saghm wrote:
| I currently use a 4K monitor and a 2K monitor side by side
| for my work with 1.5x scaling on the 4K monitor, so things
| are the same size on both. Gnome only allowed integer scaling
| by default, but IIRC I enabled fractional scaling with a
| dconf setting that I found through googling. I don't have any
| issues with this setup, although obviously things look more
| clear on the 4K monitor, so some people might not like the
| disparity.
| basilgohar wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. I run my 4k monitor at home at 1:1 so I
| don't use (and don't need) scaling, but nice to hear someone
| else had some experience with it. I always worry about the
| lag on desktop features with Linux, but I've generally not
| had problems in recent years with Fedora, for example.
| basilgohar wrote:
| ThinkPads overall tend to have great Linux support. Being AMD-
| only tends to improve that. The wireless networking drivers and
| sometimes features like brightness adjustment and Fn-based
| functionality are where there tends to be issues on early
| release but they are usually addressed quickly as adoption
| increases and more kernel devs look into reported issues.
|
| I'd love to buy some of these and do full-on reviews but the
| funding isn't there yet. AMDNow! currently makes me exactly
| zero dollars.
| ccouzens wrote:
| I use fedora gnome desktop and although it could be better, I'm
| happy with the scaling.
|
| The native apps like the terminal and Firefox scale perfectly.
| When in-between screens one screen may show the window very
| zoomed in, but when totally on one screen it will show
| correctly.
|
| Apps which still use x11 (Chrome, Steam, vscode, anything
| electron) show at the scale factor of the primary monitor.
| They're perfectly fine if you only use one monitor. When I have
| multiple monitors I make sure the x11 windows are on my
| externals (as they're the same scaling factor and one of them
| is my primary).
| [deleted]
| oofabz wrote:
| Linux support for HiDPI is not great. GTK3 apps are scaled
| appropriately, but GTK2 apps are not, and there are still quite
| a few of those, like GIMP. Such apps are displayed ridiculously
| tiny on a 4k display with unreadably small text.
|
| I've heard that if you use Wayland, these older apps get pixel
| scaled up, but most Linux distros have spotty support for
| Wayland, so getting it running can be labor intensive.
| shmerl wrote:
| T14 (AMD Gen 2 with Zen 3) has a higher res config too. But how
| useful is such resolution on 14" laptop? Can you see a big
| difference? And I'd imagine it comes at the shorter battery life
| price as well.
| basilgohar wrote:
| Many folks have commented on both sides - lots of folks think
| it's overkill and lots of other folks that have actually used
| those screens like it as it provides an overall higher quality
| display and viewing experience for sharpness and crispness of
| anti-aliased text and more.
|
| If you do not have good near-sighted vision, it's
| understandable if the feature is not that appealing to you.
| shmerl wrote:
| I see. I found it more surprising that there was no 2.5K
| option in between which could offer good balance between
| improved quality and not draining the battery too much.
| IntelMiner wrote:
| I'm surprised at the authors reverence for the Lenovo T14. I
| purchased one in September of last year and returned it in less
| than a month!
|
| While it was quite performant, the screen shipped with it was
| unusably color inaccuarate. Reviews online stating that it had a
| color accuracy of just 37% NTSC.
|
| In addition to having horrible color accuracy in general usage
| (tomatoes would look like oranges for instance) using something
| like "F.Lux" or "Windows Nightlight" would cause this level of
| color-inaccuracy to appear
|
| Windows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgjqeDF9c50
|
| Linux: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBx4mmPrM
|
| Microsoft's own demo of the technology shows what it "should"
| look like on a more proper display
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QCRDn8-qLo#t=1m58s
| basilgohar wrote:
| Very glad to hear your insight. I have not purchased one myself
| yet for lack of a detailed review of most of these.
|
| I wouldn't say I "revere" there, rather, I am just glad the
| options exist as all. I am hopeful for a network effect.
|
| Historically, however, the T series of ThinkPads have been
| excellent. My wife used to have one and many others did as
| well, and its legacy extended into the Lenovo era.
|
| Edit: I was specifically talking about the AMD T14s,
| specifically, so not sure if that's germane to your issue.
| rincebrain wrote:
| For quick reference on my AMD T14 with the 500nit display:
|
| https://www.dropbox.com/s/knsjnbw6875buwo/PXL_20211018_17194.
| ..
|
| (I do not have similar complaints about the color accuracy,
| personally, but I'm not especially sensitive to them.)
| basilgohar wrote:
| I will take your word for it, but I think captured video of
| screens' performance is probably not going to relay what
| you want to show in the best light (pun slightly intended).
|
| As I said elsewhere, I don't doubt the issues folks are
| having, and I hope more people raise it. It's important
| they are known and the OEMs address them. The comment has
| definitely sparked good discussion in the thread so far.
|
| I may cover that in future articles, too.
| rincebrain wrote:
| Sure, you're going through six degrees of color
| reproduction, my purpose was primarily to illustrate that
| I did not see mistaking the color of a tomato for an
| orange as likely in my case.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| The market in which T series ThinkPads are normally sold value
| screen quality at the bottom. We order them by the truckload it
| seems and we always opt for the cheapest, crappiest screen they
| have.
|
| Why? because these are business computers that spend all day
| looking displaying boring business applications. The most
| interesting thing they do is Zoom meetings.
|
| We even get sub 1080p displays because, no shit, they are a
| waste on many of our users who have less than stellar eyesight.
| You may wonder why we don't just use the desktop sclaing
| feature in Windows 10. And thats because more than one of our
| niche industry specific core applications is completely
| incompatible with it. And if you try to use it the interface
| will become horribly mangled with missing text and interface
| elements that are impossible to click.
|
| T series are great business computers but they aren't always
| the best choice for everyone. The best display they offer is
| just OK. Not great. But this isn't a given across the line.
| Lenovo does have models with great screens. Just not the T
| series.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| 4k on laptops is sort of an anti-feature for me, personally. It
| doesn't really improve my experience much, and often costs a lot
| of battery life.
| undersuit wrote:
| Agreed; I have a Google Pixelbook Go with a 1080p 13.3" screen.
| The native resolution of my screen is 80% scaling, while I run
| at "100%" scaling or "Looks like 1536 x 864". Native resolution
| turns it into a chesttop instead of a laptop.
|
| Maybe if I bought a 17" laptop I could consider 4k.
| babypuncher wrote:
| The real irony is their popularity on "gaming" laptops, where
| the 4k display results in noticeably worse game performance
| while not looking any better to the naked eye than a 1440p
| screen probably would.
| 3np wrote:
| I wish we'd have more 2k laptops; for me that's the sweet spot.
| 1080p decidedly too little, 4k overkill.
|
| But then I'm one of those people who run with really small
| fonts, apparently.
| toast0 wrote:
| FWIW, 4k is X x 2160 (where X is usually somewhere between
| 4096 (4k) and 3840), so 1080p which is usually 1920 x 1080 is
| effectively 2k.
|
| It looks like there are some 1440p and 1800p standardish
| resolutions that probably make sense as a middle ground.
| 3np wrote:
| Huh, seems I'm confused with the terminology. Min 1440p is
| what I'm referring to, in either case.
| toast0 wrote:
| That's because the terminology is dumb! Or at least, very
| misleading, since it's anchored on a different part of
| the spec than the previous dominant terminology
| leephillips wrote:
| That's one of several reasons I still like my 2013 Google
| Chromebook Pixel (runs normal Linux pretty well).
| Darmody wrote:
| You have now some with 3k resolution, 16:10 ratio.
|
| I hope we get to see more of those.
| basilgohar wrote:
| You're not wrong. I would have preferred having the option of
| 2.5k instead of going all the way to 4k, but 4k is something I
| would choose to make use of with scaling for a clearer, crisper
| view of text when coding. I like working up close with my
| screen and, so far, thankfully, I have excellent near vision,
| so the appeal is there for me.
| dbg31415 wrote:
| After a decade plus on a MacBook Pro, it always blows me away
| looking at non-retina displays. At this point, anything less
| than 4k might as well be a monochrome monitor limited to 80
| characters per line. It just looks so dated and hideous. And
| when someone sends me screenshots that aren't from a 4k
| monitor... oof. Like, "Guys can you go re-do that deck on a
| computer that doesn't take quarters to operate?" Ha.
| secondcoming wrote:
| I have a 4k, 17" laptop and I've concluded that it's largely
| pointless. Everything needs to be scaled up anyway to make it
| usable.
| matsemann wrote:
| That scaling isn't like a zoom, though. It makes letters
| crisper, borders pixel perfect etc.
| short12 wrote:
| This is an important distinction that some get fooled by.
| It's the same physical size when scales but is
| substantially more crisp
| StillBored wrote:
| Particularly if you disable subpixel anti-aliasing
| because the color fringing is distracting.
|
| I'm not so sure about 2k/3k screens @ 14" though. 1080p
| is about right for 1:1 scaling, but isn't sharp with
| smaller fonts. If one is going to scale the screen 2k
| definitely isn't enough to get that "smooth" look.
|
| I tend to run fedora/kde these days though, and the
| scaling there is pretty bulletproof @ 4k/14". Once in a
| while something will fail to scale properly, but its
| rare.
| matsemann wrote:
| It can be a bit overkill, and I run with 250% scale. Having
| something matching 200% scale would have lead to less
| artifacts. (or 300%, I guess)
|
| However, when used to it, it's hard to go back.
| petepete wrote:
| I bought a 4k ThinkPad X1 Carbon in 2019 and I love it, but in
| retrospect I totally should've bought the 1440p model. On a 14"
| screen you just don't appreciate the resolution.
| pkulak wrote:
| And now they don't even make a 1440p model. What the hell?
| You have to choose between 1080p and 4k, one which is too
| low, and one too high.
| therealunreal wrote:
| Understood, but after using the Surface Book at 3000x2000@13.5"
| (267 PPI), I'm spoiled. The text is a lot better.
| anyfoo wrote:
| You must never use PDFs then. On a MacBook, it's amazing to see
| what a difference HiDPI makes.
| pkulak wrote:
| It's about have the _right_ resolution. On a 13-inch screen,
| that's about 1440p. On 15, it's 1800p. Both are HiDPI, but
| neither are 4k, which I do agree, is a waste and actually
| causes scaling issues.
| anyfoo wrote:
| Does not cause any scaling issue on macOS, ever, so that's
| a software issue.
|
| And scaling PDFs on the screen to be next to code is
| really, really better with HiDPI.
| short12 wrote:
| I am the exact opposite. If a laptop isnt 4k it isn't even a
| contender. 4k really makes a huge difference to me because the
| image quality is that much better. Battery life is generally
| shit on all laptops whether it has 4k or not.
|
| So this is good news from amd because I like them much more
| than Intel
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I'd encourage you to plug in the screen size and resolution
| into a calculator like https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-
| distance-calculator before making a decision that it's
| required. A 4k display is 'retina' at distances much closer
| than people sit, even at 27". On a laptop size screen, it's
| even worse.
|
| I have a xps 13 and I specifically chose the 1080p version.
| Even at that res I still have to zoom / scale.
| acdha wrote:
| How's your vision? The difference for me is noticeable even
| without glasses -- even on a 13" display, the higher
| resolution display is quite obvious since you don't see
| visible pixel boundaries and I find it's less strain over
| the course of a day.
|
| (And to be clear, I'm not asking to be mean -- I have
| multiple friends who were skeptical about retina displays,
| got an updated eye exam, and became huge fans)
| akvadrako wrote:
| There isn't any need to plug something into a calculator -
| the difference in text clarity is immediately obvious.
|
| 4K is a little overkill for a 14" screen, but I understand
| why the jump instead of making custom resolutions.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| I can clearly see the pixels on a 13" or 15" laptop display
| at 1080p. It doesn't start looking seamless until 1440p or
| so. The advantages of 4K depend heavily on the quality of
| your eyesight
| short12 wrote:
| I have an xps 13 and specifically chose the 4k. I love it
| and there is no going back to 1080p for me. When I am using
| the dock it is connected to a pair of 4k 27" dells and it's
| glorious all around
| The_Colonel wrote:
| What you _might_ be seeing is actually the difference
| between matte and glossy display. I was like you, seeing
| how supreme 4K panel was ... until I saw glossy 1080p
| which was much sharper than 1080p matte (which desharpen
| the image) and not much different from 4K (to my eyes).
|
| (all comparisons took place on XPS 13s)
| basilgohar wrote:
| Different people see things differently. Pixels may not be
| individually resolvable, but that is far from the only
| feature that impacts viewing quality. Anti-aliased fonts
| will look clearer and smoother at smaller sizes on a higher
| resolution screen. Lines will be sharper. Those with better
| near vision can pack more details into the page.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Yep, I think this is called 'subpixel visual acuity' and
| there is a marginal benefit
| basilgohar wrote:
| I would argue it depends on the person. I'd love to be
| able to test this independently myself, but I don't have
| enough cash to spare to do so.
|
| If you're aware of folks testing this, it'd be great to
| share that. The fact remains that 4k displays have been
| available for non-AMD laptops for a very long time (at
| least a few years) so they keep making them and people
| keep buying them, so I'd like that arrangement to be
| offered at least for AMD laptops as well, because it's
| definitely something lots of people, as this thread
| clearly demonstrates.
| hangonhn wrote:
| What is it that you do that requires 4k? Genuinely curious.
| I'm a software engineer and to me 4k sounds like it wouldn't
| make a difference. But maybe you are one too and I just don't
| know any better. Thanks in advance.
| eulers_secret wrote:
| I like the extra screen space 4K offers; but only on large
| screens. I run without any scaling (well, 100%), my editor
| offers 101 lines visible vertical and 470 columns. (each
| line is ~1/4" measured on a ruler; 27" screen 23" from my
| eyes)
|
| I can view ~6 open files at once (more depending), and this
| can be very helpful when trying to remember context:
| instead of remembering, I just split the screen and open
| the same file again.
|
| When I got a 4K monitor, it replaced my previous dual
| monitor setup. I now prefer just one high-res monitor. Only
| disadvantage is that I spend time tweaking font sizes, but
| that's mostly front-loaded and once it's set up (Linux) I
| don't even think about it.
| indeyets wrote:
| Eye strain is much lower on 4k because fonts are smoother.
| It's not about screen estate (but sometimes it is, if you
| really need it), but mostly about clarity and smoothness in
| 2x retina mode
| lultimouomo wrote:
| For me the only, huge, selling point of 4k is text
| rendering. I could watch movies, do graphics or play games
| on a full HD screen all day long, but for programming I
| cannot go back.
| mike_pol wrote:
| Text looks sooo much better in 4K. Antialiasing especially
| around curves kills text for me in 1080p. Plus if you have
| good eyesight you can fit more text on your screen.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| 1440p would have the same result on a tiny screen.
| short12 wrote:
| Personal experience but no. 1440p doesn't even come close
| t-writescode wrote:
| How close are you sitting to your 4k, presumably like 15
| inch, screen? Or, how good is your vision?
|
| A 4k, 15 inch screen is "retina" at 12 inches away and has a
| ppi of 293.72.
|
| There may be something to be said about subpixels; but, it
| may be a placebo effect over a 1440p screen, honestly.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| It is an advantage if you want to connect it to a large monitor
| and mirror the displays to have the same desktop on both
| screens
| post_break wrote:
| It's lenovo so is there still a display lottery for such display?
| 50/50 chance to get one that is garbage?
| basilgohar wrote:
| It would be nice if this were accurately tracked somewhere so
| it can be called out and Lenovo being shamed for offering. If
| you have references to where this is logged, it'd be great.
| I've not heard of such a problem independently, but I'm
| interested in knowing more about that.
| ldng wrote:
| Trusted Lenovo with the A485 to have a good Ryzen laptop. Never
| again. Thinkpad is really loosing its edge.
| StillBored wrote:
| The P14 has reasonable ram configurations from what I can tell.
| Its insane to think that 16G max on a 16 thread processor is
| enough for any serious workloads that scale with core count (aka
| a lot of them) as is provided with the T14. But I still don't get
| why lenovo still provides _soldered_ ram at all on the T/P series
| machines, I've been repeatedly gimped by that with my work
| provided machines (besides the inability to match timings when
| the socket has 2x the capacity installed/etc).
|
| But what I really want to know is where the full bios manual is,
| so that I can see if its possible to enable S3 standby. My use
| case for a laptop generally involves putting it in my bag
| overnight/etc and I expect the battery to basically be where I
| left it over the weekend/etc. I've yet to have a "modern standby"
| machine that can pull that off without hibernating the machine.
| Frequently even with hibernation it will wake repeatedly and
| drain the battery anyway. Toss in the fact that i've not had good
| luck with AMD machines power savings and that makes it doubly
| important that S3 works.
|
| The lack of a pre-installed linux option doesn't provide much
| confidence.
|
| Acer and some of the smaller vendors seem to be the only ones
| providing a full suite of BIOS options on their machines (they
| also have two dimm slots). The problem is that their machines are
| plasticy and have crummy form factors.
| akvadrako wrote:
| I have the 2019 X1 Carbon which has BIOS options for S3 Suspend
| and S0ix Modern Standby. In my tests both use the same amount
| of power when sleeping.
| Brave-Steak wrote:
| I've given up. I disable hibernation and I shutdown my laptop
| whenever I used to put it to sleep. It's bizarre that
| standby/hibernation no longer works reliably.
| dataflow wrote:
| > I still don't get why lenovo still provides _soldered_ ram at
| all on the T/P series machines
|
| Cynical take: so you buy it, then realize it's soldered, then
| buy another computer?
|
| > But what I really want to know is where the full bios manual
| is, so that I can see if its possible to enable S3 standby.
|
| Some Lenovo laptops that come with Windows have a "Sleep State"
| option that you can switch from "Windows 10" to "Linux", which
| I think is what disables Modern Standby? I've seen C3 be
| enabled by one of the options on a recent Lenovo, I think it
| was probably that setting.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> Cynical take: so you buy it, then realize it's soldered,
| then buy another computer?_
|
| Bingo! That's why they're all getting a big middle finger
| from me, and I'm gonna walk the walk and take my money to
| Framework as all the others try to push you to their premium-
| buisness-ripoff lines of machines if you want a laptop with
| more than 16 gigs of RAM.
|
| FFS, just because I need 32 or 64 gigs of RAM doesn't mean I
| want a $4000 workstation enterprise machine with all the
| bells and whistles I will never use. Just give me your
| regular $1000 machine and bill me for the difference to 32/64
| gigs.
| mnl wrote:
| You can look up such details before buying in
| https://psref.lenovo.com. Then usually the hardware
| maintenance manual is available in support, that's the main
| reason why I end up getting their laptops, although their
| obnoxious wireless card whitelists (don't trust
| "compatible" FRUs BTW) make me always look elsewhere in the
| first place.
| nix0n wrote:
| If you don't care about "workstation" branding, or out-of-
| the-box Linux compatibility, you can get a high-RAM laptop
| by looking at gaming laptops.
| basilgohar wrote:
| This is also true. Gaming laptops tend to have a nice
| blend of performance features that lend them well to
| overall performance in may cases, but likely not focusing
| on super long battery life.
|
| It'd be great if there was a marketing push for gaming
| laptop-like performance without all the gaming
| embellishments like RGB lighting, "stealth" appearance,
| etc. I'd love an elegantly designed, high-capacity
| battery version.
|
| The Asus ROG Strix G15 Advantage Edition gets the best of
| these features, with the one exception of lacking a mux
| switch to turn off the integrated graphics when using the
| dedicated graphics for even more performance on the
| built-in screen. There are several YouTube videos that
| cover this, amongst the best are Jarrod's Tech.
| basilgohar wrote:
| That's why I highlighted this boneheaded move by Lenovo
| prominently in the article and also blasted them for it.
| mfkp wrote:
| It appears that the P14s AMD does support S3.
|
| Comment from @chx on a different thread I found last week:
|
| You can check which ThinkPad BIOS has the option at their BIOS
| emulation site: https://download.lenovo.com/bsco/index.html
|
| For mine it's under Config // Power // Sleep State. Windows 10
| means useless Modern Standby, Linux means S3.
| https://i.imgur.com/Y5CchL9.png
| marcelnita wrote:
| You must be referring to the T14s with the 16 GB RAM
| limitation. The T14 has 8/16GB soldered and one free slot where
| you can install another 16GB.
| basilgohar wrote:
| Not sure if you mean the Gen 1 or Gen 2 T14s, but as I
| pointed out in the article, both the T14s Gen 2 and P14s Gen
| 2 can be configured with up to 48GB of RAM, albeit with the
| lopsided arrangement of 16GB being soldered on while the
| remaining 32GB are in the upgradable slot as a regular
| SODIMM.
|
| I really feel an arrangement like this should be outlawed, it
| really makes little to sense to not have both be regular,
| upgradable SODIMMs like almost every other normal laptop.
| basilgohar wrote:
| This is why the high resolution screen options were so
| important. The extra features are almost always available on
| the smaller OEMs, such a Asus, Acer, MSI, etc., but rarely from
| the tier-1 vendors (if that is the appropriate term). Hopefully
| Lenovo doing this will encourage all the rest of the vendors to
| start making more sensible design changes as well.
|
| That's also the main motivation for me to call this out in such
| a detailed article - people should have all the choices
| available to them and not have them artificially directed to
| "Intel -> quality, AMD -> value/compromise".
| basilgohar wrote:
| This was really big news for me, so I really put a lot into
| documenting this important milestone and why I felt it was
| important.
|
| Also, it was my first time including an audio version, so feel
| free to load the page and listen rather than read. Just forgive
| the "first time-ed-ness" and my awkward mistakes. I did so many
| retakes and still so many glitches made it into the final audio
| recording.
| xvilka wrote:
| For now the biggest problem with modern laptops is the small
| amount of RAM - most limited by 16Gb. In the age of Docker,
| virtual machines, Electron applications and heavy Web
| applications this amount is quickly insufficient.
| basilgohar wrote:
| All these laptops I mentioned in the article can go up to 32GB,
| and two of them up to 48GB (albeit with unbalanced SODIMMs).
| artfulhippo wrote:
| On the day that Apple takes their next step forward, this
| announcement is effusive over a 2560x1600 screen? Am I reading
| this right?
| oblak wrote:
| Sure but Lenovo has been offering some AMD models with 90Hz
| 2880x1800 panels for some time now
| basilgohar wrote:
| They have never been available for AMD laptops before this and
| there are also, for the first time, 4k screens available on AMD
| laptops. The title really does hit all the important points I
| was trying to make, I believe. 2560x1600 is on the smallest of
| the 3 laptops featured in the article.
| [deleted]
| jikbd wrote:
| It's not fair to compare MacBooks to Windows laptops.
| cjblomqvist wrote:
| Whatabout laptops like the Asus rog flow 13? It's been 4K and
| possible to buy for half a year at least? Am I missing something?
| babypuncher wrote:
| By my math, a 4k laptop screen needs to be 20" diagonally before
| the pixel density drops to a perceptible level. Any smaller than
| that and the pixel density is so great that I don't think you are
| getting any improvement to clarity at a typical laptop viewing
| distance.
|
| 20" laptops are a pretty rare occurrence today, even in the
| desktop replacement space. Most laptops I see with 4k screens are
| 13" to 17".
|
| So my question is, why waste GPU cycles (and by extension,
| battery) driving all these extra pixels?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-18 23:02 UTC)